During the week a friend of mine, the Sydney painter Olivia Bolton, sent me this link to a very interesting Guardian experiment where they dragooned the paper’s sports desk to become arts correspondents for a day and the arts desk to try their hands at sport.
The test was to determine whether the arts (dahhling) and sport really are completely distinct as cultural experiences as they are made out to be.
“You are the only sports journalist I know,” she wrote, “so I thought you might enjoy the Guardian’s new approach to arts reporting. Somehow I think the arts journalists may have had a tougher time on the sports reports.”
From football writer Kevin McCarra’s painful description of his experience of Finnish choreographer Tero Saarinen’s Next of Kin production at Queen Elizabeth Hall, I’m not so sure.
As much as he tried, the poor bloke just couldn’t stop thinking about football. Long-time fans of the world game will be familiar with this malaise. After a while football so completely occupies your every thought that it becomes a social liability.
“It was a surprise to see Avram Grant back in work just hours after Chelsea sacked him,” he begins. “Those doleful features actually belonged to the papier mache head briefly sported by one of the six dancers, but they reminded me of the Israeli football manager.”
Meanwhile, over at Wembley, hunkering down for a performance of Championship football, Hull City versus Bristol City. proceedings were similarly dire for the paper’s visual arts man Jonathan Jones.
As he much he tried, the poor bloke couldn’t help thinking about art.
“Watching football,” he writes, “is, in theory, a bit like looking at art. The view from my seat (which has its own little TV monitor) might be compared to looking down on a vast green abstract canvas laid flat, with dots oscillating about like some 1960s piece of kinetic art. But … throughout the match, I keep trying to concentrate. I can watch the ball go from one player to another, maybe a second, even a third pass … and then my mind starts to wander.
“Frankly, what’s football about? How can so many people get so passionate about a ball? The massed feeling is so intense that it ought to end with heads being torn off and chests opened with sacrificial daggers, like the ancient ball game in pre-Columbian Mexico.”
How can so many people get so passionate about a ball?
I don’t know, Mr Jones, I wish I had the words to explain why football grips me more than a Francis Bacon painting or an evening of Scandinavian jazz, but it invariably does and my hunch is that it’s because, like the three billion other people who are gripped by the peregrinations of the round ball, I’ve never found it difficult to find art in football.
Exhilaration. Beauty. Profundity. Maradona, Pelé, Cruyff, Baggio, Zidane – all were, are, artists of the first order. Regular readers of my columns will also well remember my personal paean to our country’s own under-appreciated genius Nicky Carle.
Is Nicky Australian football’s Vincent van Gogh? Cut your ear off, son, and mail it to Pim.
It’s infinitely harder to find football in art. Literature, yes. Crappy movies, yes. But what I call, for want of a better term, “high art”? For a game that is such a readymade canvas for expression, very slim pickings indeed.
The most recent example I can recall is the pretentious conceptual French flick Zidane: Un Portrait du 21ieme Siecle, which trained 17 cameras on the Les Bleus legend during one of his club matches for Réal Madrid. (As far as I know it never got released here.)
Fortunately, however, for those of us who do believe the two can go together – and moreover, should – the National Football Museum in England recently held a retrospective of football art rather imaginatively called “The Art of Football” and, better still, there was “Artfootball”, a fantastic FIFA-sponsored exhibition of 14 specially commissioned World Cup football posters that I happened to completely miss while at Germany 2006.
As fate would have it I found high-quality prints of the posters in a Sydney gallery a few weeks ago and quickly snapped up a couple. I just love the Luo Brothers’ “A Cup for Your Toy” and Hisashi Tenmyouya’s “Football”.
Anyone who wants to know how and where to get their hands on their own copy can contact me here at The Roar.
For a country so obsessed with sport, it amazes me that there are so little examples of football art in Australia; cricket, arguably our premier obsession, has a pedigree of sorts, being found in the works of Brett Whiteley, and Australian Rules has itself a very good chronicler in the talented young Moonee Ponds artist Martin Tighe.
So let’s hope that once Frank Lowy has finished up making our game the number code and nabbed Australia the 2018 World Cup, he sponsors an Archibald-like competition for people like me who see art in this beautiful game.
If it’s hung on a wall, sceptics like Mr Jones might just be convinced after all.
Sign-up to The Roar’s A-League tipping comp and tipping against Jesse Fink and other Roarer! Start here.
Ian Jessup
Guest
The most exhilarating soccer I have seen in the last 10 years was when the Matildas did well at their last World Cup. Their whole aim was to play fast, open, attacking football - it sure put the cynical, defensive European bores to shame. How can anyone get excited about watching 90 minutes of poncing about in faux-homoerotic theatre - sport is supposed to be athletic, aerobic and aesthetically pleasing. Soccer is not.
fatboi-v-
Guest
i also have a wee bit of a man crush towards nicky carle. as a socceroos supporter since the mid 90s as a kid, Ive been lucky to see the likes of zelic, okon, kewell, viduka grace the green and gold. however nobody has captivated my senses as much as this nicky carle. i was lucky enough to catch zidane for france at the MCG and everytime zidane got on the ball there was magic in the air. he was smooth, fluent, graceful and his wizardry was akin to a master painter's gentle caress of his paintbrush. nicky has a beautiful touch, his elegant feet and ball control makes him appear as if he's floating on the pitch and he is a joy to watch. holman makes me throw up. i am hoping to one day see nicky carle wearing the no.10 green and gold shirt, with culina and cahill behind him (cahill to run past and get into the box), and harry kewell and emerton to his side and scott mac in front of him. they will play the beautiful game making lovely triangles around the edge of the box, lots of playful flair, tricks and flicks and with carle at centrepiece, we will demolish teams in style. once i see this may this football lover rest in peace.
Vicentin
Guest
To those wondering about "Mister Lady" - I believe team is Nuremberg and the Mister Lady is a brand of jeans ( a clothing company anyway ). Would have been fitting for (Brazilian) Ronaldo to have played for them rather than Milan (as if) considering his recent troubles. I think football is art if is played properly. Sadly most play it like house painters though.
dasilva
Guest
I think the shocking and confrontational is only one aspect (and a minor aspect) or art. For every controversial artist there is 100 artist who aren't and the most highly rated artist aren't necessarily confronting or shocking. I don't believe Mozart, Bach, Beatles, Radiohead are particularly shocking but they are very well respected and perhaps revolutionary. Slippery Jim maybe we have to agree to disagree. Lets just say that a lot of people like sports for different reasons. People like Jesse Fink and many fans appreciate the arts/ creativity while people like that Michael Creed and many other fans enjoy the competitive aspect and winning of sports (I do as well I just think both are important). I just think Football is a great game because it can merges creativity with the competiveness perfectly.
Michael C
Guest
Art is not by definition necessarily entertaining - - rather - - they like to 'shock', or 'confront' people. Funny then that some codes have been pushed to legislate away much of their 'shock and awe' attributes.......to appease those who seem to yearn for the entertainment and fail to see the 'art'.......
Slippery Jim
Guest
One case of Sport and Art doing their best to meet is detailed by Giles Smith in this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/giles_smith/article4271663.ece About an, er, artwork called "Work No850", by a certain Martin Creed. Basically, it consisted of sprinters running back and forth, bleep-test style in an art gallery. Giles Smith, not insignificantly, makes this observation: "The Tate's sprinters are adult running club members with big stride patterns and, one at a time, they fairly hammer down the marble floor of the Duveen Galleries, having been instructed by Creed to “sprint as if their lives depended on it”. I'll say this for sports day, though: it absolutely slaughtered Work No850 for excitement and entertainment value. I hung around the Tate for the best part of an hour and never worked out who was winning." Indeed, Sport has the edge over art as it has the crucial competitive element, Running around as some sort of performamce "art" is, in any but the most existential sense, simply pointless. Where most sport differs is a clearly defined competitive goal to define the winner.
dasilva
Guest
Yeah I agree that entertainment is not necessarily an essential part of sport itself but it is an essential part of spectator sports. Entertainment from watching sports comes in various forms and in different sports have different components. Running is not a particularly creative sport and emphasise on fitness, stamina, mental spirit and will to win and that what entertain people when they watch it. However creativity/art is an essential part of football (IMO thats what separate football from other sports that don't have this component) and that is a major reason why people watch the game and play it. Although the article wasn't about the olyroos, conversation and hence post often drifts to other topics and there's nothing wrong with that. About arnold, just because we haven't seen Olyroos get knock out in the group stages yet and seee the consequences of selection yet doesn't mean we can't point out perceived flaws in selection. I'm starting to believe this hasn't got anything to do with Burns and Djite joining new clubs as Arnold hasn't admitted it and denied it and Burns devastated reaction to not getting selected. The biggest problem with the selection is that Pim Verbeek had no say in the selection which Arnold admitted. Verbeek should have give a list of players who must be selected and then Arnold choose the rest cause in the end the providing future socceroos is the whole point of it. If players were in Pim Verbeek national plans then they must be selected. Unfortunately people at FFA put too much pressure on Arnold on winning a medal and then gave him too much autonomy when the bigger issue is the Soccerroos
Slippery Jim
Guest
dasilva said | July 5th 2008 @ 3:11pm (2 days ago) Having re-read your post after my initial skim and response (something I am constantly guilty of!) I must say you were being fairly reasonable and balanced, dasilva, however I still do not subscribe to the sports as mere entertainment philosophy. Perhaps it is true that providing entertainment is necessary for the existence of professional sport in this day and age, however sport would still exist (and always has, historically) without the modernised advertising and television-sponsored professional scenario we have today. Therefore, if the entertaiment industry is not an irreducable part of sport, it is not and never has been essential to sport in general, and football specifically. Somehow I sense, however that we have drifted from the thrust of the article, which is more to do with "art" as opposed to "entertainment", and has nothing to do with calling for Arnold's head or slagging of our National Olympic Squad. Is it just me or are people way quicker to jump on a "I hate XXX" bandwagon than a "I love XXX" bandwagon? I wonder if I wrote a song called "All you need is hate" if it would skyrocket to numnber one? I'm sure some of the guys on this blog (and many others) would buy the album. Come on folks, let's give Arnold and the Olyroos a chance...
jimbo
Guest
Why don't we have the A-League 100m sprint as half time entertainment at all games with a big finale on grand final day? Who do you think would be the fastest A-League sprinter?
Slippery Jim
Guest
Mick of Newie, sure it's entertaining, but that's not the actual point of sport. When kids get together in the park and have a game of football, is it to entertain spectators? If you have a game of backyard cricket, is it so that people can watch? Is that the whole point? Of course not, you play because it is enjoyable, in part because you want to win, to compete, to have a chance to beat your mates, to show what you can do physically and mentally to prove yourself in the sport. There is a huge difference to manufactured entertainment and sport. Sure, at the top level it is made into entertainment, but if you want to pigeon hole it with Big Brother and Gossip Girl, or the Cirque du Soleil then you sadly miss the point.
Mick of Newie
Guest
Jim watching a great 100m race is pure entertainment. The drama and anticipation, the frenzy of activity and the spine tingling hair stand on end magic of seeing something great. It is about winning but a great one is about more because some 100m stay with you forever and some are forgotten tomorrow. (eg. Johnson v Lewis in Seoul, I maintain this was great race, as a naive teenager for 24 hours after it I thought I had seen something magical, the fact it wasn't does not take away the feeling at that moment in time) It is a different form of entertainment but it is still about entertainment.
Slippery Jim
Guest
dasilva, you say sport is purely entertainment and nothing else. That is a naive and superficial stance. Yet, take, for instance, the 100 metre sprint event. A man running in a straight line for 100 metres is not particularly engaging from an entertainment perspective, yet what makes it great is the colossal achievement of one man proving he excells phsyically over every other man in the race, that he has reached a level of fitness, strength and technique and taken his body and ability to a level where he can reach that finish line before any other. The ultimate glory is to beat the record, to be the fastest on the planet, or in the history of the event. That has very little to do with entertainment, even if it is televised, sponsored and advertised, it is about excelling, about winning. I can understand spectators taking the position that it is all entertainment, and we want to see tricks and flicks in football, but football players and coaches at the top level will tell you that unless you have the winning mentality, you will get nowhere in any sport. Taking the "flair" option when it does not gain an advantage for the team is criminal football negligence - sometimes genius is playing a simple. effective pass instead of trying to beat a man. Great players, such as Ronaldinho and Zidane, know this. Their skills are a garnish, not the main course.
Slippery Jim
Guest
sledgeross, I never claimed to have a mass of "football knowledge", purported or otherwise, but to call the Australian Olympic squad and coach "wankers" steps over the line, even for someone named "sledge"ross, don't you think? I understand your disappointment, quite frankly I am a little cross at Kewell, for fobbing off the national squad once again, as soon as he is in contract, and simultaneously trying to put a "for the good of the national team" spin on it to make himself look good. Sounds an awful lot like a rather disengenuous "it's not you, it's me" excuse if you ask me. The bottom line is, you can't change the squad, so let's get behind them and back them to the hilt. It's a bit rich to slag them all of even before they kick a ball in the actual competition...
dasilva
Guest
Really you don't have to see the consequences of a mistake to see one and point one out. The non selection of Burns, Djite and Vidosic is very puzzling from a football point of view. However there are rumours that they didn't pick those players due to trying to build bridges to the new clubs or AEK athens and Gençlerbirliği and doesn't want to distrupt preseasons and hoping that missing the olympics will allow burns and djite to be first teamers at the start of the new season. If this is true then it is a very brave decision from Arnold as he is taking all the heat for that choice. However this may bite back if olyroos get knock out in group stages and Bruce and Nathan were still bench players at the start of the season.
jimbo
Guest
Jesse, who is the team in the photo sponsored by "Mister Lady" and who the hell is "Mister Lady". Not sure if I want to follow those guys, even if they are the "arty types".
dasilva
Guest
I disagree with you Slippery Jim. Sport is an entertainment industry. Professional sports only exist because fans ENJOY watching the game and willing to pay money for it. Its true that sport is about competing and the will to win. Its true that people enjoy watching those elements. Its the reason why players like Steve Waugh and Roy Keane are popular. Its an important element of any sport but its only one component of sports. The other component is flair, art and creativity. THe likes of Pele, Maradona, Crujff and Zidane are not just a means to the end but are the end. Their success is not the ability to wins the game but to make people fall in love with the game. People watch them and feel the awe of their skill. Sometimes when they do a spectacular move that doesn't result in a goal (which a pragmatist would say would be meaningless) causes excitement (Pele most memorable moment in 1970 World Cup didn't result in a goal. His audacious chip and some of his dribbles). If you didn't have flair players. You'll still see players compete, and you'll get to see 'your' team to win but you won't have the same enjoyment. I seriously doubt that football will be the number one sport in the world without flair players like pele and maradona and I doubt that a lot of people on this board right now wouldn't be fans of the game if it wasn't for entertainers on the pitch.
onside
Guest
Jesse, A great link to the Guardian.Lots of fun.Loved it. Sport and art are identical in their ability to generate extreme examples of raw emotion and passion.
Mick of Newie
Guest
Jim I wish them well. But I consider it to be a far too defensive squad. Clearly Arnie was not able to get the over age players he wanted but that is no excuse for picking North. He already had in Milligan and Spiranovic 2 quality central defenders (and another 3 CD's in the squad) even then not to find room for one of Vidosic, Williams, Burns, Djite, Holland, or Zullo is bizarre. If he was looking at the A league for over age players did he consider Joel Griffiths. Surely of more value to this squad than North. I do not consider being a fan to be a myopic process that doesn't involved criticising the FFA for their choice of coach or the coach for his choice of players. I'll leave that to the brain dead sycophants of the Australian Cricket team.
sledgeross
Guest
Mate, the team should be about talent and balance. How the bloody hell can Djite be good enough to play for the seniors, but not this team. Noone is bagging the players, but the processes around the selection. Ive supported Arnie before, but never again. Slippery, if you think thats the best team we can put out with all of your purported football knowledge, then its you who have lost the plot mate.
Slippery Jim
Guest
Way to support our national Olyroos team and Aussie coach, lads. Perhaps it is you "fans" who have lost the plot. Why not wait until we actually play before writing off selection, tactics and coaching ability...